I know, so long as you can continue to play the "insert some Catholic bashing into unrelated threads" game unimpeded, you'll be happy. I didn't bash anyone. Nor am I going to sit here and defend against such moronicism. And if you're going to charge it, prove it. Go back to my original point and tell me and everyone else in here where I bashed the Catholic church. There is nothing there but a digest of the facts. If stating facts is bashing, then your problem is with the people who created the facts - the Catholic Church. Oh wait, let's not put it on all catholics, that is not accurate. The Roman Catholic Church. The latins perpetrated that fraud, not the Orthodox, they knew better and wouldn't relent to it.
Certainly! Discussing the topic of why you feel the need to post this stuff into unrelated thread migh be helpful.
I am completely on topic. In discussing the use of fraud and or forgery in the rewriting of history to suit an end, if mentioning the most aggregious and well known of such frauds among historians is not on topic, then NOTHING is. Care to tell me what's topical about your guys coming in here and trying to drag Martin Luther into the discussion by stretching the bounds of the conversation to the imagination? That wasn't about being topical. It was about trying on ya'lls part to sink this into a religious debate. I still managed to tie it all back to the debate ongoing and you guys have offered nothing but slander and insinuation. Pretty bad when you have to create a shadow to box with in plain view of everyone and then try to convince everyone it's you being picked on when it's quite the opposite. Don't attack me and make accusation when it's you guys pulling the garbage. Either stick to the topic or stuff a sock in it. I've got no use for bandying words with Martyrs that craft their own swords and fall on them in plain site while telling everyone that witnessed it that it was someone elses hand on the pommel.
I'm here to debate the topic as it founded in the article. If you wish to continue to try and slander me, there's plenty enough record here that I'm happy to take to the moderators as abuse. You're duly warned.
Actually, as some of the Roman Catholics on this board will tell you, I am more than willing to discuss some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that I believe are in error.
Do I care? If I wanted to discuss how full of error the Catholic church is, I'd be in the Christian Chronicles sub. This discussion is about fraud as it relates to rewriting history and supplanting it with lies and fantasy. Again, the Roman church did it and got caught, that they have the distinction of owning the greatest fraud perpetrated is their fault not mine. Saying it is not bashing - it's stating an established fact. If the facts hurt, then you need to decide whether the truth is more important than your comfort. But spare us the self martyrdome complex. It's beyond juvenile and the bile from it is unmistakeable.
I didn't bash anyone. Nor am I going to sit here and defend against such moronicism. And if you're going to charge it, prove it.I believe that I've been quite clear that your insertion concerning the Roman Catholic Church into the thread constituted bashing, IMHO. Had this been a thread concerning the primacy of the Pope, for instance, the same information would have been right on topic.
I am completely on topic. In discussing the use of fraud and or forgery in the rewriting of history to suit an end, if mentioning the most aggregious and well known of such frauds among historians is not on topic, then NOTHING is.
I just find it curious that you went to that particular example instead of something more recent, such as the Soviet rewriting of their Medieval history or the Democrats re-interpreting the failed Great Society programs as a success. I believe the selection was indicative of a bias.
Care to tell me what's topical about your guys coming in here and trying to drag Martin Luther into the discussion by stretching the bounds of the conversation to the imagination?
My guys? Pardon me, but they are individuals over whom I have no influence. ;-)
If you wish to continue to try and slander me, there's plenty enough record here that I'm happy to take to the moderators as abuse. You're duly warned.
You're threatening me? That's truly funny. Here, I'll ping the moderator for you. I suggest that your selection of off topic insertions indicate a bias and you call it slander? Perhaps you should heed your own words.
If the facts hurt, then you need to decide whether the truth is more important than your comfort. But spare us the self martyrdome complex. It's beyond juvenile and the bile from it is unmistakeable.
Dear Kettle:
You're black!
Sincerely,
The Pot. 